Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

None.

Approaches

The following approaches were reported by Councillors.

67 Medway Gardens Wembley HA0 2RJ (Ref.18/1597)

Councillor S Butt was approached by Sudbury residents by email sent to all Sudbury ward members.

Willesden Green Garage, St Pauls Avenue NW2 5TG (Ref.17/5291)

Councillor Chappell approached by residents in connection with the application.

57 Cricklewood Broadway, London NW2 (Ref.17/5292)

Councillor Colacicco was approached by residents in connection with the application.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 August 2018 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

PROPOSAL:  Full planning permission for the demolition of the existing 'Pedway' ramp structure to the front of Wembley Stadium and the construction of a set of steps (with associated lighting) to connect ground level to Wembley Stadium Landing Level (concourse); and use of the void created beneath the proposed steps as secure storage for estate maintenance equipment; the reconfiguration of an existing unadopted estate road (Perimeter Way) to create two new roads either side of the steps connecting to Engineers Way; the use of land beneath the steps bridge as temporary event space; a revised vehicular access to Plot W03 immediately west of the application site and public realm works comprising the installation of hard landscaping, street trees, lighting columns that can incorporate advertising banners, street furniture, underground water attenuation measures, services, tree pits and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission and that the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the main report.

The Head of Planning be grated delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Ms Hilary Seaton (Planning Officer) introduced the report including details of the proposals and answered members’ questions. She explained that the scheme which would consist of 16 channel steps each with 48 steps separated into 4 flights would be of concrete structure and incorporate comprehensive lighting strategy. The proposal would improve legibility, deliver improved public realm and pedestrian flow as well as link in well with development for plot W03 and W04 in the area. 

In reference to the supplementary report she informed the Committee about the formal response from Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) since the publication of the agenda.  The response set out WNSL’s support for the proposals, conditional upon a number of matters being addressed by planning conditions within any planning permission granted.  She continued that the majority of the matters raised by WNSL were captured within the proposed conditions. To ensure that outstanding matters raised by WNSL were addressed, the Planning Officer recommended an amendment to condition 15 as set out in the supplementary report. 

The Planning Officer then referenced a letter from Hilton Hotel requesting signage for local hotel facilities and LDO and consultation on the Site Environmental Plan.  In addressing those requests, she advised Members that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

PROPOSAL: Erection of a first floor side extension and part two storey rear extension, loft conversion with hip to gable conversion, rear dormer, subdivision of the rear garden, 1No. front rooflight and new window to front elevation to facilitate the conversion of a single family dwelling into two self-contained flats (1 x 2 bed and 1x 3 bed) (Amended description 30.07.18)

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Ms June Taylor (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  She referenced the supplementary report which set out neighbours’ objections and added that the issues raised had already been included in the summary of objections and taken into account in the preparation of the committee report.

Ms Imelda Smith (objector) objected to the proposed development on grounds of increased pressure on on-street parking in an area with low PTAL rating of 2 and inadequate consultation process. She added that due to its bulk, the proposal failed to comply with Council policy. In response to members’ questions, Ms Smith explained that as Medway Gardens was not within the CPZ, it was always difficult for residents to find parking places for their vehicles. 

Councillor Daly (ward member) addressed the committee to speak against the proposal. In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly stated that she had been approached by residents in connection with the application.  Councillor Daly raised concerns about the consultation process and parking pressure on Medway Gardens.  She added that as the proposal which was for a 6metre deep extension, it breached Council policy and urged members to consider granting permission for a 3metre extension instead. 

Mr Oliver Block (Senior Planning Lawyer) advised that Members could only consider the application before them without revision to it.

Ms Liz Alexander (applicant’s agent) stated that the principle of development was accepted by Council policy as the proposal would re-provide family housing unit with direct access to the rear garden of the property.  She continued that the design would comply with National Space Standards as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of MOT garage and erection of a part seven-storey and part four storey building with basement level to provide 70 self-contained flats (35 x 1 bed, 22 x 2 bed and 13 x 3 bed) with ground, third and fourth floor amenity spaces and ground floor play area, provision of basement car parking, cycle and refuse storage, alterations to vehicular accesses and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement and to issue the planning permission and impose conditions (and informatives) to secure the matters set out within the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

That, if by 12 December 2018 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Damian Manhertz (Area Planning Team Leader) introduced the report and answered members’ questions and in reference to the supplementary report, reiterated the condition about mitigation measures to reduce overheating to some of the units.  Members were advised that the proposal would deliver 18% affordable units and 16 basement car parking spaces.

Mr Peter Hale (objector) raised concerns about the application on the following grounds;

Loss of light to neighbouring flats at No 75, in excess of BREEAM recommendation.

Excessive number of I bedroom units rather than family size units

Excessive density.

Unsatisfactory waste management arrangements to the detriment of residential amenities.

Mr Jorge Barbeito (objector) stated that the proposed development failed to enhance the heritage status of the area and adjoining listed building by its excessive height, overlooking to neighbouring property, unsympathetic scale and design, culminating in a development which would be out of character with the area.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Miller (ward member) expressed concerns about the application’s detrimental impact on light, the excessive density and lack of assessment of flooding impact.

Mr Mark Westcott (applicant’s agent) stated that significant amount of consultation had been carried out which had resulted in a revised proposed building from 8 to 7 storey and that the design was inspired by local buildings including Kingsley Court.  He added that the proposed development would provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

PROPOSAL: Change of use from hotel (Class C1) to 9 x self-contained flats (1 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed) (Class C3) with retention of public house (Class A4); three storey rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee's decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Mr Damian Manhertz (Area Planning Team Leader) introduced the report and answered members’ questions. In referencing the supplementary report, he informed members that the issues raised in the additional objection received had been fully discussed and addressed in the Committee report.  He reiterated that the internal space for the pub would be retained within the site and that a change of use was not proposed for the public house.

Ms Joanne Scott (objector) expressed concerns about the loss of the public house (pub) use in a mixed development and requested its protection by the imposition of appropriate conditions which would prevent future change of use.  She also requested the retention of the frontage of the building so as to preserve its heritage merit and to ensure that the views from the Mapesbury Conservation Area were not harmed.

Mrs Carolyn Apcar Smith (applicant’s agent) stated the proposed development would deliver a much needed housing including family size units without detriment or harm to Mapesbury Conservation Area.  She continued that majority of the objections received related to the suspected loss of the pub use and re-affirmed that the pub use would be retained.  Members were informed that there was no policy to resist the loss of the beer garden.  Mrs Smith clarified the waste collection, delivery and servicing arrangements.

Although Members welcomed the report, it was noted that the scheme did not include a kitchen and that servicing and delivery times were not explicit in the conditions. For these reasons, they amended condition 6 by the deletion of “hot” and condition 9 for clarity of the servicing and delivery times.

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

Voting was recorded as follows: For 7, Against 0, Abstention 1)

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.